Comments:

Jeff - 2008-05-16 04:22:38
I'm still kind of ambiguous on the whole gay marriage thing, and even though I don't think we need any kind of constitutional amendment to prevent it, I'm curious where in the constitution there is anything about marital rights. I keep hearing that banning gay marriage is a violation of constitutional rights, but I just don't get that. I am, of course, open-minded enough to be shown, though. And it is kind of frightening to see the court overturn something that the "people" decided. That is a very dangerous road to head down. Anyway, I voted against the "Marriage Act," and will vote against it in any form in which it appears. I do think that this is an issue that should be left up to the states, regardless of my personal opinion on it. And I hope that nothing I said came out offensively. It certainly wasn't intended that way.
---
art - 2008-05-16 09:43:23
marry who ya want to, live and let live. thats what i say!
---
John - 2008-05-16 13:36:08
Jeff- KEY to the entire decision is in these words: "an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." A state Supreme Court (composed of, by the way 90% Republican appointees), recognized the constitution violation and said so in their decision. In terms of California law (and Federal law, for that matter) Marriage is a legal contract -- that's why you can get married by a Justice of the Peace (a government official) -- you're not limited to ONLY being able to be married by an ordained minister of a recognized faith (and in that case, we're talking about marriage not just as a legal contract, but also as a sacrament/religious ritual). If it's a violation of a California citizen's rights to prohibit them from entering into a legal contract because of race, creed or gender, it's ALSO a violation of those rights to prohibit them from entering into a legal contract because of their sexual orientation.
---
Rosie - 2008-05-16 14:22:20
I agree that this is a good thing. While I am not gay, I have long felt that since under our government (which separates Church and State) marriage is purely a legal contract, which is meant for the protection of both partners regarding their contributions to the marital entity, that anyone should be allowed to enter into that contract. Did any of that make sense? And Jeff, the Supreme Court is there to make sure that what people vote for IS constitutional. if it isn't, they can overturn it. What if the "people" voted for a law which said that we could go out and lynch every single illegal immigrant? (And the way feelings are running these days, it would probably pass in most Southern states!) Just because it would be voted in doesn't make it right, or constitutional.
---
bluesleepy - 2008-05-16 18:23:48
Personally, I hope the other 48 states will follow the example of California and Massachusetts. It makes no sense to deny people the ability to be married on basis of their sexual orientation. Now if a church won't marry a gay couple, that's a horse of a whole 'nother color. People have a tendency of mixing their religious beliefs and their morals with what should be legal. Also, I felt John's explanation to be spot-on. I'd give him a standing ovation if I wasn't glued to my couch.
---
Jeff - 2008-05-22 01:30:42
Hey, all. I did come back to see if there was some more explanation on the issue, and was pleasantly surprised. At this point, I have realized (I think) that my understanding on this issue is inhibited by the fact that it is the California Supreme Court that has acted on the issue, not the US Supreme Court. Which means that they must be speaking about the STATE constitution, rather than the US Constitution. This makes me totally unqualified to even be talking about it, because I have no knowledge whatsoever of the CA Constitution, being that I live in, you know, Texas. So I respectfully confess my ignorance and will shut up. I do, however, appreciate John's explanation on the issue.
---

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland